AIBU to think staying at home with children is undervalued?

[Amby99]

I’m not ignorant of the fact that staying at home isn’t financially possible or desirable for everyone, and I don’t think children who go to nursery are disadvantaged whatsoever . There are brilliant nurseries, brilliant working mums, and plenty of happy, healthy children being raised that way (and fulfilled and happy mothers)
However, I do wonder whether society (or the government) has become so focused on measuring “productivity” through paid employment that we’ve started to undervalue the work involved in raising a child.
Badenoch saying that the government doesn’t want to “punish working parents” in relation to childcare costs … it made me wonder why being a SAHM is so rarely viewed as valuable or productive in its own right.
Preparing my baby’s first solids, BF him, reading, playing, taking him outside, talking to him, letting him explore and generally being available. It feels like important work, yet because it isn’t paid it often seems invisible.
There are of course many advantages to nursery, and that work can be important for a mother’s identity, finances, career and mental health.
But why does the conversation seem to focus so heavily on encouraging parents back into paid employment, while choosing to provide that childcare yourself is rarely encouraged or valued in the same way? I’m not talking about mothers that sit at home all day feeding their child McDonald’s and claiming every benefit under the sun. I get why they may be encouraged back into the workforce and their children would be better off at nursery. BUT I’m sick of having to feel guilty of my choice to stay home. Every parent I know who was a parent in the 90’s stayed at home and it wasn’t so frowned upon.

I just think it should be seen as a worthwhile and valuable choice rather than something that needs to be justified because you’re “not working”.

Do you suffer from issues with reading comprehension? I have said (possibly to you, I can't recall), that we would've been poor whether I worked or not (how nice for us). I've also said it wasn't a sacrifice. Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth, when I've literally explicitly said otherwise?

You don't have to lie to avoid offending people, but perhaps you should avoid making sweeping generalisations on the basis of your own narrow experience, as people will inevitably find that offensive. And wrong.

We can all cherry pick examples from our own experience and make generalisations from those examples, not they are rarely helpful or informative. As is so often said on MN, anecdote does not equal data.

I don't understand why you would feel guilty for choosing to be a SAHM. You decide what is right for your family and it is really noone else's business. Staying at home or working full time (and anything inbetween) are all perfectly valid choices.

Some people would like to (or need to for financial reasons) return to work. However without support with childcare costs that would not be possible. As I understand it, SAHP on benefits are able to claim without any pressure to return to work until their child is 3. That supports them. If you aren't eligible for benefits and decide to be a SAHP then presumably you can afford it. You can still get the free hours once they kick in so your child will have some time in nursery (if you choose) before they start school.

It's a good thing that I wasn't attempting to provide data, then.

Yes exactly, and right now many parents who want to stay home longer with their 9 month old infant cannot so they put them in a funded childcare place and go back to work. There is no choice. Which is my whole point!

I never thought it was a sacrifice being a full time working parent. Financially I’ve never needed to work but liked my career and liked having a family.

DT’s are now grown up and it’s good looking back on the decisions we made at each stage of their lives. Happy children = happy parents

No, well it's quite clear that you weren't pretending to provide data. But my point was about you seeking to make generalisations based on your own very limited experience.

Agree, and my main motivation in my career is to be able to afford to give my children a good life, security and opportunities.

I really think you need to re-read OP’s posts.
For example you say:

“However, the comments today have been made in response to an OP specifically inviting opinions on her idea that we should value SAHM by paying them from public funds.”

But when a pp suggested OP was looking for financial reward from the government she said “that is absolutely not what I meant. Value doesn’t just come from money. I meant more in the ethical sense that staying at home raising a child, is still a lot of ‘work’ “.

She also didn’t say staying at home was superior. In her first sentence she says:
“I don’t think children who go to nursery are disadvantaged whatsoever.There are brilliant nurseries, brilliant working mums, and plenty of happy, healthy children being raised that way (and fulfilled and happy mothers)”.

Because you failed to mention that your kids’ friends had abusive working parents. Which adds a confounding variable and makes your argument far less valid and credible.

How does guilt come into it?

Guilt is a totally irrelevant concept if you are the sole breadwinner. I could feel as guilty as you think I should (I don't) but that doesn't change the fact that I have to earn money to support my child.

What difference would guilt make to that?

Not from me you haven’t.

And of course abusive stay at home parents also exist and this is even worse as there is no one to pick up potential abuse.

Don’t know where you got the idea that we’re all full time stay at home parents.

Yes. I went back full time after 10 years. Wasn’t any better off. You spend what you have!

Why would you find it offensive though?

The government wants taxpayers, and some people would say that putting small children in the sausage-factory of childcare/schooling encourages them to conform and fit into society later on, as they will be used to effectively being "institutionalised" (please don't shoot me; I watched a documentary about education a long time ago, and that bit stuck with me).

Personally, I think it is a bit weird that we have our children and then pay someone else to bring them up for us when, in some cases, we could do a better job ourselves. In theory, I'd love to be a SAHP. However, as I would be a single parent by choice, I'm also aware that I would need to work to pay bills and buy food and things.

I do think that it should be an option to stay at home with your children, and for parents who do that to be valued and subsidised, but unfortunately, I do not think that will happen in this day and age.

Agree.

Why do you always get so personal? For a SW your judgement is worrying.

Personally, I find people promoting the idea that having a SAHP is better for children - through generalisations of the type that I have highlighted - offensive because I think it can put subtle pressure on some women to make choices that aren't necessarily in their best interests or in the best interests of their children.

I have not been personally affected by this as a parent, because I was always very sure that I was making the right choices for my own family. However, I was negatively affected by my mum feeling that she had to SAH in order to be a "good mum" because that assumption proved very damaging to her mental health, and that was not for for us as children either. She felt very guilty for wanting more from her life than being a mum, and she never got over the regret that she felt over having given up her career for no good reason. I don't think it's good for our society to make women feel like there is one ideal way of parenting that we should all be aspiring to.

I don't actually think that WOH/SAH matters. There are so many other aspects of parenting which are infinitely more important. We should be focusing on them.

I think its weird to think of the hours a child spends in childcare for the first 4 years of their lives as their 'upbringing'. I have three adult children and have been parenting them in total for 30 years. The arrangements I made when they were preschoolers is a tiny part of that job. Insignificant in the scheme of things.

You know full well that’s not what she was getting at. You’ve just manipulated it to try and get some sort of sympathy and make a point that doesn’t exist.

It’s very clear she meant the people sitting at home claiming benefits, choosing not to work whilst fit and healthy and using every excuse under the sun to not go out and do a hard days work. She very clearly isn’t talking about a stay at home mum whose husband earns enough to support her 🙄. This is why people end up loosing ‘respect’ for stay at home parents, because people like the OP want to make a big song and dance about looking after kids whilst forgetting that every other person does it too.

So why can’t we just respect each other’s choices? I agree with the OP. That doesn’t mean I disrespect parents who make a different one.

Of course we can respect each other's choices. I do absolutely respect the choice of people who decide to SAH with their kids or WOH part time or full time or whatever. It's an individual choice, and as long as it works for you, your partner and your children, then it's really nobody else's business.

But I will continue to argue the toss with anyone who tries to suggest that SAH should somehow be rewarded by wider society or that it is somehow the better option for children because I simply don't agree.